About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)
department and cia has a military joint special operations command element to it and has been routinely deployed to assist in investigations. after the u.s.s. cole bombings and the bombings in kenya and tanzania could have helped the fbi gain access to the site in benghazi faster than the 24 days it needed. they say the team would not have done any good. a spokesman gave this explanation. quote the most senior people in government worked on this issue from the moment it happened, that includes the secretary of defense. chairman of the joint chief, secretary of state, national security adviser, et cetera. fox news has learned that u.s. military intelligence was reporting as early as 7:00pm eastern, less than four hours after the attack began that ansar al-sharia carried out the i attack on the consulate. state department cables show that stevens team warned washington that at 6:43 in the morning they had concerns on september 11th that members of the libyan police sent to guard them were photographing the compound, quote, this person was photographing the inside of the u.s. special missi
a kelly ayotte who talked about originally when miss rice came to capitol hill to meet with her the cia acting director who was with her said it was the fbi who changed the talking points to remove the reference to al qaeda having been the ones behind that attack on our consulate. then later in the day they said they got a call from the acting cia director and miss rice saying that was the wrong information. it wasn't the fbi, it was us, the cia who changed the talking points. there is still a question about who specifically did it. has any light been shed on that? >> they are doing internal review of that and putting together a time line exactly who looked at the talking points and made that change to kind of reveal that information. but really the question is who gave those talking points to ambassador rice, who did direct the entire effort of changing the narrative. in the end i think what this is all about is this president and this administration -- somebody running for reelection didn't want the narrative that we killed bin laden and al qaeda was decimated. because al qaeda isn't
department, cia, everybody, was what exactly happened. it took two weeks for the intelligence consensus to settle down which is pretty quick as far as these things go. and so we now know what happened. there was clearly confusing stories. >> there seems to have been confusion in the intelligence communities. and the state department, i don't know. the state department says that stuff about the video didn't come from us. that was not our conclusion. they watched it unfold realtime and realtime apparently concluded this was an act of terror. there are still so 15-minute questions. >> that's what the president said the day after it happened. megyn: even though he used that term, he declined specifically repeatedly to confirm in the affirmative when he was asked was this terrorism. he kept saying we have to let the facts play out. you can't say by using the term "terrorism questions was saying it was an act of terrorism. you understand why people are confused, right? >> two weeks later at the u.n. he did not mention terrorism but he talked about the youtube video. administration officials t
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5 (some duplicates have been removed)